Nvidia packaging for Fedora
Rex Dieter
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Fri Jan 28 17:48:50 UTC 2005
Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
>>nvidia should *not* be the provider for libGL.so, but MesaGL. Else you
>>end up with binaries that work only on/for nvidia users.
>
>
> You fail to see that libGL.so is a dead link on systems which don't have
> Mesa GL installed.
But Mesa GL *should* be installed if you intend to compile anything.
That's the point.
> So, requiring me to go install Mesa GL is already a bug.
I fail to see how/why requiring MesaGL to compile anything is a bug.
> rpm -ql xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL* -p
>
> /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1
> /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2
> /usr/lib/libGL.so.1
>
> How is this supposed to work?
> /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 takes precedence over the
> nvidia folder with the same lib.
...
> Even if it didn't, relying on which libGL.so.1 came first
> seems like a very fragile setup. I recall redirecting that link,
The nvidia folder is supposed to take precedence at runtime. That is
how it is *supposed* to work.
Fragile or not, it works for most folks, and is certainly better than
what the nvidia installer does.
-- Rex
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list